2
$\begingroup$

In proving the the existence of the Reedy model structure on the category of simplicial objects in a model category $\mathcal{C}$, Goerss-Jardine prove there is a pullback square induced by a map of simplicial objects $f:X\to Y$, namely $$\begin{array}{ccc} Y_n\times_{M_{n,k+1}}M_{n,k+1}X& \to & X_{n-1}\\ \downarrow & & \downarrow\\ Y_n\times_{M_{n,k}Y}M_{n,k}X& \to & Y_n\times_{M_{n-1,k}Y}M_{n-1,k}X \end{array}$$ and I am having some trouble seeing exactly how they derive this pullback. For reference, this is lemma VII.2.2 in Goerss-Jardine.

Here is what I have attempted so far. Here, Goerss-Jardine define $$ M_{n,k}X = M_{\Delta^{n,k}}X $$ where $\Delta^{n,k}$ is the simplicial set $d^0\Delta^{n-1}\cup \cdots \cup d^k\Delta^{n-1}$ and for a simplicial set $K$ and a simplicial object $X$ in $\mathcal{C}$, you can take $$ M_KX:= \hom^{\Delta^\mathrm{op}}(K,X) $$ From a standard pushout $$\begin{array}{ccc} \Delta^{n-1,k}& \to & \Delta^{n-1}\\ \downarrow & & \downarrow\\ \Delta^{n,k}& \to & \Delta^{n,k+1} \end{array}$$ Since $M_{(-)}X$ takes pushouts to pullbacks, we get a pullback $$\begin{array}{ccc} M_{n,k+1}X& \to & X_{n-1}\\ \downarrow & & \downarrow\\ M_{n,k}X& \to & M_{n-1,k}X \end{array}$$

and we get a similar pullback for the partial matching objects on $Y$. My attempt at getting the desired pullback was to enlarge the diagram to the following 3-by-3 diagram $$ \begin{array}{ccccc} Y_n & \to & Y_{n-1} & \leftarrow & X_{n-1} \\ \downarrow & & \downarrow & & \downarrow \\ M_{n,k}Y & \to & M_{n-1,k}Y & \leftarrow & X_{n-1}\\ \uparrow & & \uparrow & & \uparrow \\ M_{n,k}X & \to & M_{n-1, k}X & \leftarrow & X_{n-1} \end{array} $$ The desired pullback diagram is then supposed to be obtained from this 3-by-3 diagram by taking the horizontal limits and then taking the corresponding pullback. I tried commuting these two limits, so I thought of taking the limits of the row and then taking the corresponding pullback, but this didn't really seem to simplify the problem.

I am not sure if my attempt can be made to work and I am just not seeing something, or perhaps I am unaware of some category theory trick that Goerss-Jardine are using. Anyway, any hints would be greatly appreciated.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

I would understand this proof as describing the limit of a "deleted 3-cube" in two different ways.

We have a square involving maps $X_n\to X_{n-1}$, $X_n\to M_{n,k}X$, $X_{n-1}\to M_{n-1,k}X$, and $M_{n,k}X\to M_{n-1,k}X$; this square maps to a similar square with $X$ replaced with $Y$. Altogether it is a cube. I can't draw this cube here.

Now let's completely forget about the "maximal vertex" $X_n$. The pullback you want to compute is actually the inverse limit of the deleted cube. (It is also equal to the limit of your 3-by-3 diagram.)

When you compute the limit of a deleted 3-cube, you can slice it up in several different ways, so that it is equal to a pullback of three objects, one of which is a vertex, and the other two are pullbacks. Goerss-Jardine have set it up one way. But we can also slice it up as the limit of $$ Y_n \to Y_{n-1}\times_{M_{n-1,k}Y}M_{n,k}Y \leftarrow X_{n-1}\times_{M_{n-1,k}X} M_{n,k}X. $$ GJ identify the rightmost term as $M_{n,k+1}X$. The same argument shows that the middle term is equal to $M_{n,k+1}Y$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.